4 ms·

VR and the future of computing: awaiting its iPhone moment

13 points by gpresot 11y ago

digi_owl 11y ago
iPhone moment?
- T-A 11y ago
  You'll know it's here when VR Jesus appears (cf. Jesus phone [1]). [1] http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia/term/59933/jesus-phone http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia/term/59933/jesus-phone
- kriro 11y ago
  I think the author basically a shift from clunky VR hardware to slick consumer friendly devices. I don't quite agree that that's exactly what happened with the iPhone or that there actually is something similar to the Nokia phones that are referenced in VR space but that's the idea from the article: """But the strongest advocates of the smartphone revolution, such as Nokia, failed to anticipate how it would play out, with the result that others now dominate the new industry. The turning-point was Apple’s iPhone. With its touchscreen and elegant apps, it set the model for the entire industry. VR has yet to have its iPhone moment. The idea is sound and the gear works, but today’s chunky headsets are unlikely to conquer the mass market."""
  - digi_owl 11y ago
    I love how they gloss over that iPhone was out for a year before it got any kind of apps going. Hell, Apple was pushing "web apps" (glorified websites basically) for that whole year. Damn it, the original didn't even ship with UMTS (3G). The only ones that was hot and bothered about it was those already invested into the iTMS sphere, and MSM. The latter because for some reason their world runs on Apple computers.
    - quesera 11y ago
      That's revisionist. The release of the iPhone was a huge inflection point in the industry. You can argue about how much was inevitable and how much was innovative, but you can't dispute that the iPhone led the way.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - minthd 11y ago
      >> iPhone was out for a year before it got any kind of apps going. It took time to gather enough users to convince developers and the carrier to support your app store the way Apple like it.
  - minthd 11y ago
    Actually nokia had an iPhone like device in 2004(whatever that means, not a lot of details, understandably[1]) but: “It was very early days, and no one really knew anything about the touch screen’s potential,” he explained. “And it was an expensive device to produce, so there was more risk involved for Nokia. So management did the usual. They killed it.” Apple faced a similar decision - an expensive device, that wasn't a sure success(at least in the beginning) - but they could leverage their iPod customers and their music libraries to get an initial market for the device - and than use that power together with a smart strategy(playing carriers against each other, which was hard for nokia) to fully control the phone - what enables a very different app store dynamic . Couple that with Apple's deep understanding of brand building and marketing ,one gets the notion that nokia lost to the iPhone less because of not seeing the future, but more because Apple had better resources and skills and just played a better game. And why did Apple lose to android ? due to the same reason - Google is far better at software development + Open source phone financed with ads fits Google very well. [1]http://venturebeat.com/2010/09/27/nokia-had-iphone-like-prototype-in-2004-but-killed-it/ http://venturebeat.com/2010/09/27/nokia-had-iphone-like-prot...
  - soylentcola 11y ago
    I've often made the comparison between the smartphone industry and the VR industry, likening the current crop of VR solutions (Oculus, Vive, etc.) to the first Treos and Pocket PCs. Those devices were the some of the first phones that qualified as legitimate smartphones and could perform the tasks associated with smartphones (email, web, calendar, media playback, 3rd party apps, navigation, etc) in a manner that was acceptable to early adopters and enthusiasts. It took a while before the work done in that space could lead to more modern hardware iterations that brought the same features in a more ergonomic and streamlined device (like the iPhone and its contemporaries). If VR is going to take off, I can imagine a similar scenario. These first devices will be the first real, functioning examples of consumer VR tech that doesn't totally suck, but they'll still be a bit bulky, often require a more powerful computing device to do the heavy lifting, and won't really be appealing outside of the enthusiast and early adopter space. It'll take some time before the displays and HMDs are smaller, lighter, and don't require as much in the way of offboard processing power. Once the hardware catches up, we'll be more likely to see more mainstream telepresence, communication, and entertainment users getting into the space whereas now it seems to be focused on tinkerers, developers, and gamers.
    - moron4hire 11y ago
      > If VR is going to take off... VR took off already.
    - minthd 11y ago
      >> These first devices will be the first real, functioning examples of consumer VR tech that doesn't totally suck, but they'll still be a bit bulky, often require a more powerful computing device to do the heavy lifting, and won't really be appealing outside of the enthusiast and early adopter space. Looking at review videos of VR by regular people, it seems that the emotional experience it gives people is strong enough for them to live with compromises being made. Of course there's a difference between that and paying $1500 , but maybe with mobile phone based VR we can bypass that , to an extent ?
      - soylentcola 11y ago
dharma1 11y ago
Pretty low signal to noise ratio in this article
dsugarman 11y ago
I think it is more accurately awaiting is blackberry moment, or if we're really honest with ourselves, it's palm pilot moment
moron4hire 11y ago
This article almost seems like the introduction to a different, better article. Just as it gets past the obligatory "compare to the 90s" and "mention porn" and "reference ugly devices" and "remind everyone AR is a thing", it just ends. As someone working in the VR industry, I guess I have a much higher exposure to these sorts of articles. After a while, it just starts to look like everyone is sitting in their coffee shops or bedrooms or what have you and saying to themselves, "welp, if I don't say anything about VR, people are going to label me irrelevant, so better see what everyone else is saying." Hell, there isn't even a reference to 3D films and TVs! The Economist is really falling down on the job here.
- mnemonicsloth 11y ago
  It is the introduction to a longer article. http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21662481-virtual-reality-flopped-1990s-time-its-differentapparently-grand http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/2166248...

13 points by gpresot 11y ago

digi_owl 11y ago

iPhone moment?

T-A 11y ago
You'll know it's here when VR Jesus appears (cf. Jesus phone [1]). [1] http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia/term/59933/jesus-phone http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia/term/59933/jesus-phone
kriro 11y ago
I think the author basically a shift from clunky VR hardware to slick consumer friendly devices. I don't quite agree that that's exactly what happened with the iPhone or that there actually is something similar to the Nokia phones that are referenced in VR space but that's the idea from the article: """But the strongest advocates of the smartphone revolution, such as Nokia, failed to anticipate how it would play out, with the result that others now dominate the new industry. The turning-point was Apple’s iPhone. With its touchscreen and elegant apps, it set the model for the entire industry. VR has yet to have its iPhone moment. The idea is sound and the gear works, but today’s chunky headsets are unlikely to conquer the mass market."""
- digi_owl 11y ago
  I love how they gloss over that iPhone was out for a year before it got any kind of apps going. Hell, Apple was pushing "web apps" (glorified websites basically) for that whole year. Damn it, the original didn't even ship with UMTS (3G). The only ones that was hot and bothered about it was those already invested into the iTMS sphere, and MSM. The latter because for some reason their world runs on Apple computers.
  - quesera 11y ago
    That's revisionist. The release of the iPhone was a huge inflection point in the industry. You can argue about how much was inevitable and how much was innovative, but you can't dispute that the iPhone led the way.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - minthd 11y ago
    >> iPhone was out for a year before it got any kind of apps going. It took time to gather enough users to convince developers and the carrier to support your app store the way Apple like it.
- minthd 11y ago
  Actually nokia had an iPhone like device in 2004(whatever that means, not a lot of details, understandably[1]) but: “It was very early days, and no one really knew anything about the touch screen’s potential,” he explained. “And it was an expensive device to produce, so there was more risk involved for Nokia. So management did the usual. They killed it.” Apple faced a similar decision - an expensive device, that wasn't a sure success(at least in the beginning) - but they could leverage their iPod customers and their music libraries to get an initial market for the device - and than use that power together with a smart strategy(playing carriers against each other, which was hard for nokia) to fully control the phone - what enables a very different app store dynamic . Couple that with Apple's deep understanding of brand building and marketing ,one gets the notion that nokia lost to the iPhone less because of not seeing the future, but more because Apple had better resources and skills and just played a better game. And why did Apple lose to android ? due to the same reason - Google is far better at software development + Open source phone financed with ads fits Google very well. [1]http://venturebeat.com/2010/09/27/nokia-had-iphone-like-prototype-in-2004-but-killed-it/ http://venturebeat.com/2010/09/27/nokia-had-iphone-like-prot...
- soylentcola 11y ago
  I've often made the comparison between the smartphone industry and the VR industry, likening the current crop of VR solutions (Oculus, Vive, etc.) to the first Treos and Pocket PCs. Those devices were the some of the first phones that qualified as legitimate smartphones and could perform the tasks associated with smartphones (email, web, calendar, media playback, 3rd party apps, navigation, etc) in a manner that was acceptable to early adopters and enthusiasts. It took a while before the work done in that space could lead to more modern hardware iterations that brought the same features in a more ergonomic and streamlined device (like the iPhone and its contemporaries). If VR is going to take off, I can imagine a similar scenario. These first devices will be the first real, functioning examples of consumer VR tech that doesn't totally suck, but they'll still be a bit bulky, often require a more powerful computing device to do the heavy lifting, and won't really be appealing outside of the enthusiast and early adopter space. It'll take some time before the displays and HMDs are smaller, lighter, and don't require as much in the way of offboard processing power. Once the hardware catches up, we'll be more likely to see more mainstream telepresence, communication, and entertainment users getting into the space whereas now it seems to be focused on tinkerers, developers, and gamers.
  - moron4hire 11y ago
    > If VR is going to take off... VR took off already.
  - minthd 11y ago
    >> These first devices will be the first real, functioning examples of consumer VR tech that doesn't totally suck, but they'll still be a bit bulky, often require a more powerful computing device to do the heavy lifting, and won't really be appealing outside of the enthusiast and early adopter space. Looking at review videos of VR by regular people, it seems that the emotional experience it gives people is strong enough for them to live with compromises being made. Of course there's a difference between that and paying $1500 , but maybe with mobile phone based VR we can bypass that , to an extent ?
    - soylentcola 11y ago

dharma1 11y ago

Pretty low signal to noise ratio in this article

dsugarman 11y ago

I think it is more accurately awaiting is blackberry moment, or if we're really honest with ourselves, it's palm pilot moment

moron4hire 11y ago

This article almost seems like the introduction to a different, better article. Just as it gets past the obligatory "compare to the 90s" and "mention porn" and "reference ugly devices" and "remind everyone AR is a thing", it just ends. As someone working in the VR industry, I guess I have a much higher exposure to these sorts of articles. After a while, it just starts to look like everyone is sitting in their coffee shops or bedrooms or what have you and saying to themselves, "welp, if I don't say anything about VR, people are going to label me irrelevant, so better see what everyone else is saying." Hell, there isn't even a reference to 3D films and TVs! The Economist is really falling down on the job here.

mnemonicsloth 11y ago
It is the introduction to a longer article. http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21662481-virtual-reality-flopped-1990s-time-its-differentapparently-grand http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/2166248...